ArticleThe patient2013
Modeling organizational justice improvements in a pediatric health service : a discrete-choice conjoint experiment.
Article in The patient, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Current Practices for Accounting for Preference Heterogeneity in Health-Related Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2022Pooled it
- Using Latent Class Analysis to Model Preference Heterogeneity in Health: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Supporting Staff in Southern Family Planning Clinics: Challenges and Opportunities.Maternal and child health journal · 2022Article
- Modeling Heterogeneity in Patients' Preferences for Psoriasis Treatments in a Multicountry Study: A Comparison Between Random-Parameters Logit and Latent Class Approaches.PharmacoEconomics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients value health service teams that function effectively. Organizational justice is linked to the performance, health, and emotional adjustment of the members of these teams.
objectivesWe used a discrete-choice conjoint experiment to study the organizational justice improvement preferences of pediatric health service providers.
methodsUsing themes from a focus group with 22 staff, we composed 14 four-level organizational justice improvement attributes. A sample of 652 staff (76 % return) completed 30 choice tasks, each presenting three hospitals defined by experimentally varying the attribute levels.
resultsLatent class analysis yielded three segments. Procedural justice attributes were more important to the Decision Sensitive segment, 50.6 % of the sample. They preferred to contribute to and understand how all decisions were made and expected management to act promptly on more staff suggestions. Interactional justice attributes were more important to the Conduct Sensitive segment (38.5 %). A universal code of respectful conduct, consequences encouraging respectful interaction, and management's response when staff disagreed with them were more important to this segment. Distributive justice attributes were more important to the Benefit Sensitive segment, 10.9 % of the sample. Simulations predicted that, while Decision Sensitive (74.9 %) participants preferred procedural justice improvements, Conduct (74.6 %) and Benefit Sensitive (50.3 %) participants preferred interactional justice improvements. Overall, 97.4 % of participants would prefer an approach combining procedural and interactional justice improvements.
conclusionsEfforts to create the health service environments that patients value need to be comprehensive enough to address the preferences of segments of staff who are sensitive to different dimensions of organizational justice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23371430What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.